header-logo header-logo

13 December 2007 / Joanna Wort , Hilary Aldred
Issue: 7301 / Categories: Features , Discrimination , Employment
printer mail-detail

Christmas crackers

Employers need to tread carefully when sorting out
their Christmas holiday rotas, say Hilary Aldred and Joanna Wort

The UK has historically operated working practices which take account of Christian festivals. The make-up of Britain has, however, changed; both in relation to multi-cultural issues and consumer expectation of 24/7 service. Workplaces have had to change too.

In 2003, the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations (SI 2003/1660) (the regulations) made discrimination at work based on grounds of religion or belief unlawful.

Before this there was no specific protection against discrimination on the grounds of religion. Claimants tried to gain protection by “shoe horning” certain religions into the race discrimination legislation. This worked for some religious groups that also qualified as “ethnic groups” under the Race Relations Act 1976, but not others. Jews and Sikhs were protected, but Muslims were not.

The basic position under the regulations is that direct and indirect discrimination, harassment and victimisation based on religion or belief are unlawful. While direct discrimination is obvious, indirect discrimination is not. It happens where an employer applies a “provision, criterion or practice”

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll